Fourth and Main: old & new pictures

The successful battle by preservationists to have the old Royal Oak Savings Bank building designated a historic district went on during roughly the same time that property rights activists successfully defeated an attempt to declare hundreds of Barton Towers area houses historical. For background, see [Chopping Pillars].

Public records show that Morningside acquired a property which had been allowed to deteriorate, empty and unused for about 10 years, by its previous owners, another bank.

Once the building was designated historical, the practical problems began: What may or may not be done to the facade, to the roof? Although theoretically, even legally, there can be no historic-focused restrictions on what is done inside a historic building, real-world considerations came into play. At meetings of the Historic District Study Committee, there was controversy about the replacement windows which are, what, inside and outside? It developed that the original windows were industrial grade and not historical at all. Complicating the window-situation is that the previous owners had constructed a mezzanine, whose edge is clearly visible from Fourth Street.

Even whether a restaurant might be permitted is affected by how and where mechanical equipment can be mounted or passed through exterior walls, not to mention the legitimate concerns of Skylofts owners about odors and noise. Latest word is that the most likely tenant of the bank will be a combination of unobtrusive retail and service. At any rate, the illustrations below suggest what the final rehab will look like and how they compare to the original. Keep in mind, though, the civic dialogue which must have accompanied the appearance of the construction cranes at the top of this page.

Earlier comment:
The Fourth and Main Bank Building seems well on its way to becoming a quasi-permanent boarded up eyesore. The immediate cause seems to be the granting or not of a liquor license to a proposed tenant. The real cause is that the City Commission issued a 6-month historic district study-recommended moratorium on the property, then added a second 6-month moratorium, effectively “taking” a piece of property because a handful of preservationists are in love with some deteriorating faux-Greek pillars. [UPDATE: A compromise of sorts was reached in that only the pillared corner structure had to be maintained historical. As this is update is written (November 2003), the Historic Commission and the developer are arguing over how the windows of that corner must be treated.]

It is difficult not to conclude that what some tout as a love for historic preservation is really a gut-level anti-development mindset. We’ll know soon, when we see who comes out screaming against two or three new proposed developments: a condo/parking structure across from the Post Office, the former Marshall Fredericks studio, a possible hotel on Washington.